HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

BTW the vote is set up that you can change your mind and vote at any time having read the discussion here.

Daniel Quinn wrote:Essentially the freedom arguments appears to be I wish to have the freedom to say what i want for as long as i want , but i wish to retain the freedom to alter what i said without notice or trace for as long as i want .

Well I'd imagine that's one part of it. Free adult members would be at liberty to state their preference for hifi kit, at liberty to state kit they don't like, at liberty to line their speakers with metal plates, at liberty to rip out metal plates from their speakers, at liberty to post negatively about other forums, at liberty to stand up for their negative posts about other forums in the face of threats of being banned from other forums, and at liberty to retract their own negative posts about other forums in the face of threats of being banned form other forums.
The alternative at the moment seems to be that HFS takes posession of all posts after 5 minutes. I suspect this may be a valid legal position, but it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of freedom from oppressive regimes.
It may well be that preserving negative posts about Marco /appearing to avoid intereference from Marco might be the higher priority here, which is of course completely the perogative of the forum admin team (and I only suggest this as I can't find any reference to a 5 minute rule prior to this incident regarding the retracting of an anti-Marco post. I may be wrong).

For me though, the main issue with the freedom agruement is that if autonomous people want the freedom to post legally acceptable content, then they should own what they post and accept responsibility for their posts. Whether, in the face or threats of banning, they want to stick up for what they wrote, or whether they want to give in and retract their words, I would like to see remaining the business of that particular free member.

If forum software permits, perhaps an automatic note that a post has been edited or deleted, and the time of the edit(s) or deletion could be alternatives to the 2 extremes of retaining the 5 minute rule: Yes / No...?
Moreover, I presume that in many of these cases the truth of bullying, threats and intimidation will out.

Once your words have been published and read , surely for the sake of integrity , freedom and autonomy they should remain as posted.

the rewriting of history is what of course Winston Smith did in 1984 . Are we all to be allowed to be ministers of our own truth and the expense of the truth ?

Daniel Quinn wrote:Are we all to be allowed to be ministers of our own truth and the expense of the truth ?

Of course not. That would put us on the same level as those who would govern us.

I've only once deleted a post retrospectively, because it had (unintentionally) upset someone. My grammar and spelling never need correcting, and my views are generally non-controversial.

There seems to me to be several general rules to adhere to:

1) Do not post when pissed

2) Think before you post rather than after you post

3) Make your posts as clear and unambiguous as possible, so you don't unintentionally offend

Follow these simple rules, and you will never need to edit another post.

But 5 minutes is too short a cut-off point IMO.

Admin consensus is we change edit to 30min and leave delete at 5mins, so this is going to be implemented. At the same time we will look to updating the software to find a better solution in the future.

Put everything back as it was please.

P.S. I wholeheartedly agree with Joe's post above. Thinking this way is all that's needed here

Daniel Quinn wrote:the rewriting of history is what of course Winston Smith did in 1984.

Sorry, except in the most general terms, I don't see a meaningful parallel between the goings-on in 1984 and this situation.

In vaguely general terms, I certainly do value freedom more than I do the permanence of posts on a hifi forum. I readily concede that my response to this issue is conditioned by my valuing of freedom, autonomy and individual responsibility very highly. Given your Avatar, I am guessing that the way that you define or prioritise liberty and individual repsonsibility may differ from the ways that I do.

Arsehats , Freedom = truth .

Daniel Quinn wrote:Arsehats , Freedom = truth .

According to who(m) you listen to:

Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose" (Kris Kristofferson/Janice Joplin)

or

Freedom - well that's just some people talkin' (The Eagles)